ChaseDream

标题: [求助]请教费费逻辑T58 [打印本页]

作者: Manymanymany 时间: 2009-5-24 15:35
标题: [求助]请教费费逻辑T58

58. Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

A. People prefer eating meat to eating grain.

B. Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.

C. The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.

D. More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.

E. Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

这道题目看了解释还是很糊涂，到底是什么思路啊？谢谢

作者: Manymanymany 时间: 2009-5-24 15:39

我的理解是，作者的结论是scarcity of food 的原因不仅是limited resources and population growth，而且feed livestock也是原因之一。

那么assumption的话，就应该是排除feed livestock的粮食是为了给更多的人吃。

那为什么选E？？不能理解...

作者: Manymanymany 时间: 2009-5-24 17:36
再问

作者: jbyupei 时间: 2009-5-24 19:36
E少了一个NOT ，题目错

作者: qbfnigel 时间: 2009-5-24 22:37

对E取非的话，对原文是削弱。就是ASSUMPTION

别的，基本都是无关

作者: Manymanymany 时间: 2009-5-24 23:07

谢谢你的解释～但我不明白的是E取非后是怎么反驳原文结论的啊？

E取非后就是livestock可以产生更多食物给人类，能削弱结论？？

作者: 桑夏 时间: 2009-6-13 23:27

是选E。作者的意思是除了土地有限和人口数量增多以外，饲养家畜的粮食也是造成粮食短缺的原因。 assumption都有加强的作用。E说用来饲养牲畜的土地面积会为人类提供更多的粮食，这样就加强了作者的结论。若取非，饲养牲畜的土地面积不会给人类提供更多粮食，那就不用考虑这个因素了，粮食短缺只有土地有限和人口增多造成。

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)